Cue the world's smallest violin

The phrase "it sucks to be a lawyer" isn't going to get much sympathy from non-lawyers, but nevertheless, it seems there are more and more lawyers making less and less money, according to the Wall Street Journal:

A law degree isn't necessarily a license to print money these days.

For graduates of elite law schools, prospects have never been better. Big law firms this year boosted their starting salaries to as high as $160,000. But the majority of law-school graduates are suffering from a supply-and-demand imbalance that's suppressing pay and job growth. The result: Graduates who don't score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000. Some are taking temporary contract work, reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour, without benefits. And many are blaming their law schools for failing to warn them about the dark side of the job market. ...

A slack in demand appears to be part of the problem. The legal sector, after more than tripling in inflation-adjusted growth between 1970 and 1987, has grown at an average annual inflation-adjusted rate of 1.2% since 1988, or less than half as fast as the broader economy, according to Commerce Department data. ...

On the supply end, more lawyers are entering the work force, thanks in part to the accreditation of new law schools and an influx of applicants after the dot-com implosion earlier this decade. In the 2005-06 academic year, 43,883 Juris Doctor degrees were awarded, up from 37,909 for 2001-02, according to the American Bar Association. ...

Many students "simply cannot earn enough income after graduation to support the debt they incur," wrote Richard Matasar, dean of New York Law School, in 2005, concluding that, "We may be reaching the end of a golden era for law schools."

Some of the things that are making life harder for lawyers -- such as tort reform and malpractice reform legislation -- are good things for society at large, even if they're bad for me and my classmates. Still, it would have been nice to graduate from law school a little bit earlier in the "golden era." :)

Comments

[David K.]

Are you kidding? With the hours they work and their hated reputation i feel terrible for lawyers! Almost. Cause its self inflicted. And they are lawyers, so we have to hate them. ;-)

[Lionel Hutz]

If there's one thing America needs, it's more lawyers.

[HUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

"for as little as $20 per hour"

Is this suppose to illicit some sort of sympathy? lol. it reminds me of when I left business school and accepted a 135k pay package at my bank and wonder aloud, "how the hell am I suppose to live off this crap? Where do I apply for welfare"

[Joe Mama]

Say what you want about lawyers, but at Columbia at least, the law school has put the rest of the university to shame.

[Joe Mama]

Actually, I should point out that Dean Schizer's statement is his "personal opinion," not that of the law school.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I have known lots of lawyers who work a Starbucks and used car dealerships. I guess like anything, it's not the degree, but what you do with it. (I'm looking your way, Joe Mama).

[Angrier and Angrier]

Regarding Ahmadinejad, if what the guy has to say is so horrific, why not give him stage where he can adequately give himself enough rope to hang himself? (Rhetorically, though literally wouldn't be bad, either).

The guy is an arrogant ass who makes absurd claims. The more unfiltered light that is given to this psycho, the faster his own words will tear him down.

[Josh Rubin]

And what do teachers get? Quit complaining.

/rant

[Brendan Loy]

Fair enough, but how many teachers have $100,000+ in debt from three years of mandatory postgraduate education (in addition to whatever they might have from their undergrad)? And more importantly, how many of them went into teaching believing, based on misleading statistics from career-services offices, that they'd be making six figures right after graduation?

Teachers know what they're getting into, salary-wise, and they do it with their eyes wide open. On the other hand, if this article is accurate, it seems that some lawyers are making decisions based on misleading information from law schools that have every financial incentive to mislead them.

I'm not trying to demean teachers, nor to defend the say our society and economy chooses to dole out the dough to various professions. Nor am I actually asking for sympathy for lawyers (as I said: world's smallest violin), but just for the sake of accuracy, surely you can see the teachers-lawyers thing is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

Same goes for what Huskers said: nobody is arguing that $20/hour is minimum wage, but it's all about the context and the situation. To the extent that law students are led to believe that a J.D. is a ticket to instant riches that will make it reasonably easy to quickly pay back the massive loans you take out to get the J.D., and to the extent that isn't true, the frustration expressed my many lawyers in this regard is real and not ridiculous.

[dcl]

HUSKERS 94 95 & 97, umm, when did $65 and hour start equalling $20 (assuming a 40 hour work week, which would probably be absurd. but even at an 80 hour work week (the concept of which is utterly absurd if you need to work 80 hours a week either you are doing something wrong or you need to seriously re evaluate your priorities or you are doing something you really love doing, in which case I doubt you are a banker or a lawyer). Be that as it may 32 an hour is still not 20. I'm certainly much closer to the 20 side of the equation than the 65 so I can tell you, I know the difference between 65 and 20 an hour even if you don't.

[Casey]

Personally, I'm happy to have society cough up an extra few $$$ per hour to these poor lawyers just so they'll continue to go around and be the butt of so many jokes.

On the other hand, I demand that teachers pay society a virtue premium, because they get to go around smiling all the time about helping people and what not.

Finally, I insist that George Bush finance a vocabulary improvement school for the dyslexic. However, he may also raise funds for the school through royalties for the bountiful comic material he has supplied during his term in office.

[K]

This is another example of the myth of some natural wage or the fairness of the universe.

There is utterly no reason why income should be related to years of education or personal effort.

Wages go up when a group manages to get control of a vital service. The AMA and ABA and universities and unions, and many parts of government (yes, wages there are very high when all is revealed) have achieved such control.

Employed lawyers are making plenty. It is the unemployed that have the problem. But if you aren't working as a lawyer are you a lawyer? Maybe you are just a person who has passed a test.

[Angrier and Angrier]

$20 an hour to get people's coffee is a pretty good paycheck. Just ask Joe Mama.

[Joe Mama]

I have known lots of lawyers who work a Starbucks and used car dealerships. I guess like anything, it's not the degree, but what you do with it. (I'm looking your way, Joe Mama).

As you should, A&A. Thanks to the salary boost earlier this year, I am indeed doing quite well for myself (since you brought it up).

[Josh Rubin]

K, Wages go up when a group manages to get control of a vital service.

Explain how, in spite of the existence of the NEA and other organizations, teachers still make so little?

Also, Brendan, government statistics are based on the past. Simple economics will tell you that if the number of people going to law school is increasing (something widely available at career-counselor offices), but the number of high-paying jobs is staying relatively constant, more people with JDs will have to start accepting lower-paying jobs.

Furthermore, teachers are now being required to have post-B.A. degrees as well. One of the provisions in No Child Left Behind is that teachers begin to be required to have further education beyond an undergraduate degree.

Your point about loans is well taken, but then again, there has never been a guarantee as to the amount of money you'd be making. Again, if the average salary is in excess of $100,000/yr, doesn't it stand to reason that there are probably a bunch making a lot more and a bunch making a lot less?

Stupid HTML. Sorry about all the italics above

[Angrier and Angrier]

"Thanks to the salary boost earlier this year, I am indeed doing quite well for myself"

...So essentially you are admitting that you had been a coffee-fetching para-legal up until a few months ago, eh Joe Mama? Turns out I was pretty dead on about you all along.

By "doing quite well for myself" I assume that means you are now out of your parents' basement and renting an efficiency out in Stafford now. Good for you.

Sounds like someone is a little jealous of lawyers. How cute!

Some of these kids debating whether to go to law school should stop and think about developing some kind of trade skill. Laugh if ya want, but it's true. Enrollment at many trade schools is way down. Or enlist and develop a skill in the military.
My little brother spent six years in the USCG as a marine mechanic, you want to take a guess at what he bills an hour now in the private sector working on Grady Whites and Boston Whalers in Tampa, FL? Try $125 an/hr. Not too shabby for a 25 year-old without a "higher" education.

Out, damned italics!

[David K.]

Hmm, can i stop the mad italics by just posting a closing tag?

[David K.]

haha

[Angrier and Angrier]

I don't think anyone should pursue a career simply because of the paycheck. Some people are meant to be lawyers and some people are meant to be marine mechanics. I just think those people who weren't meant to be lawyers and got their JDs anyway for the money are the ones who end up selling used cars or bitching about the "posers" at their firms.

[Derek]

The hourly wage is low. I didn't graduate in top 10% of my class and had to take the $20 per hour job. I did that for about a year and figured out that I was being billed out at $150.00 but only taking home $20. The firm was making a lot of money off me.

So, I quit and opened my own office. Now I earn just as much or more depending on my motivation. On the flip side, I work my own hours, take vacation when I want (except for pesky court dates). A lot can be said for not having to answer to the boss.

Also, I've had times where I make $12,000 in a month and times where I mad $1,500. One has to be able to handle the ebb and flow, but it is possible to make a real good living without being beholden to some corporate partner.

Bottom line is you can try to feed of the corporate trough, or you can do it on your own. It may pay less, but you are actually doing what you want and there is always hope that you will make it big in the future.

[HUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

dcl,

ask any rookie banker/analyst at a top investment bank what there first two years are like and you will numbers pass 80 hrs a week especially if you are in m&a.

love what I do as a trader so it meant nothing to me to start my day at 5 am and leave the office at 7 pm or 8 pm at night and then hit it hard on saturday and sunday as well......not for the faint of heart or those who think they will be hanging in the Hamptons that first year out of school.

my i-bank paid off 100% of my student loans so that I would not have to worry about that stuff and not have to think of taking a second job. not everyone got that offer I heard but dems the breaks I guess....I know law firms like Wachtell Lipton do the same here in NY so I have been told.

I did not get into trading because of the money eventhough it helped to know that the senior managing director that interviewed me made over 20 million the year I was hired....that pay level is not promised to anyone.....I LOVED the markets first and foremost hell I was watching CNBC when I did not have any money to invest in penny stocks. But I always had a plan to have enough money by 40 so that I could quit and pursue my passion which is to coach High School football for my alma mater....not on track right now but I still love the hell out of my CAREER

[Charlie Foxtrot]

I won't be happy until I see an bum in a Brooks Brothers suit holding a hand-lettered cardboard sign that reads: "Will Frivolously Sue For Food."

[Alia]

20 years ago (I was a freshman in high school, I told a cousin of mine that I wanted to be a lawyer. At that time I was told to look for something else - "There are as many practicing lawyers as there are aspiring lawyers in law school. Don't expect to make a lot of money off the bat, if you can even find a job." What you're describing doesn't sound much different than what I was told back then.

I ended up not going to law school (I work in IT for the DoD), but every so often, I wonder what if....

[Joe Mama]

A&A,

I almost want to tell you where I work and what how much money I make, but that would be obnoxious, and quite frankly a putz like you is the last person who deserves to know that information about me, anonymous or not. So by all means, keep believing that I make $20 an hour, fetch lattes, or whatever else you need to believe about another anonymous poster on a blog that gets you through your pathetic days. And I'll promise to keep laughing my a$$ off everytime . . .

[Brendan Loy]

Angrier, your constant lame jokes about Joe Mama's job situation are extremely, well, lame. They reflect very poorly on you and say nothing about Joe Mama. Give it a rest, seriously.

[David K.]

Dang it Brendan you beat me to it! Seriously, joking about a job? Who knows what he does and who CARES what he does. Argue the merits of a point, not random stuff you make up.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

The fact that Joe Mama keeps rising to the bait leaves me with the impression that A&A is hitting close to the bone.

[Brendan Loy]

Your "impression" is completely retarded, Max.

Speaking as someone who is frequently baited, and frequently rises to that bait, I can assure you that rising to the bait does NOT necessarily prove that the baiter is "hitting close to the bone." Sometimes, it means precisely opposite: that the lies being spoken about the person being baited are so outlandish, he/she just can't help but respond.

[Mike]

"Again, if the average salary is in excess of $100,000/yr, doesn't it stand to reason that there are probably a bunch making a lot more and a bunch making a lot less?

No, Josh. It means that likely many are making more, and many are making less, but it says absolutely nothing about how much more, or how much less. The degree to which something can be expected to deviate from the mean is measured by the variance, which isn't being discussed here. I don't know what the variance in starting salary for a lawyer is, but I know that it's not necessarily the case that there are a lot of people making a lot more or less than that mean.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Brendan-

Do you know Joe Mama personally? Because unless you have some facts to contradict what A&A is saying about Joe Mama, I'm not sure you are in a position to call my impression "completely retarded."

It seems to me that there are few things that prevent Joe Mama from being "obnoxious." So the fact that he is choosing not to be obnoxious in this particular circumstance leads me to believe that some of what A&A is saying hits a little too close to home for the Honorable Joseph Mother.

[Brendan Loy]

No, I don't know Joe Mama personally (at least, so far as I know, I don't). However, your logic is ridiculous. Why wouldn't Joe Mama want to talk about his career, salary, etc.? I don't know, maybe because that would be a really dumb thing for anyone to do? My "no blogging about work" policy exists for a reason! Moreover, it's not like he couldn't just lie about his career if he wanted to, so it makes no sense to claim "he's obviously lying because he won't tell us about his career." If he wanted to lie, he could just pretend he make $200,000 a year, or whatever, and you'd have no way of contradicting him.

But anyway, I can't believe I am actually engaging you in this nonsense. This "Joe Mama's job sucks" thing is the DUMBEST LINE OF COMMENTING EVER. You and Angrier make yourselves look like complete douchebags when you do this crap. Even David, who hates Joe Mama, agrees with me. STOP IT.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Correction. It's not "Joe Mama's job sucks." It is "Joe Mama is an insecure asshole, so what can I write that sticks in his craw?"

It's not nice, but I never said I was nice. And if being a complete douchebag merits a "STOP IT," you should ban your buddy Andrew who is 99.9% douchebag.

It is obvious who the insecure assholes are.

[Brendan Loy]

Am I banning you, Max? Am I threatening to ban you? Okay then, so how does your comment that I "should ban...Andrew" make any sense at all?

Oy. I don't know why I'm wasting my time arguing with a brick wall. Really, I was just trying to save you and A&A from yourselves by pointing out how ridiculous you sound. But whatever. Joe Mama is a big boy, he can take care of himself. So carry on, then, with your hilarious, insightful commentary about him. I'll get you started:

I bet Joe Mama's job sucks! And I bet he's FAT! And I bet his mother's fat, too!! And if he denies any of these things, that means they're DEFINITELY TRUE!! hahaha, pwned!!!

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Brendan-

You aren't saving me from anything. If you hadn't noticed, you have basically driven away anybody who disagrees with you on this blog who wasn't your college roommate. Your blog participants are composed of sycophants and college buddies. If anything I am saving you from yourself by continuing to present a point of view other than your own.

[Brendan Loy]

LOL... you're such a victim, Max. And a martyr! I love it.

Get over yourself. Your faulty interpretations of the comment traffic on my blog are of no interest to me.

[Joe Mama]

It's not nice, but I never said I was nice.

No, you said that everyday you are an asshole.

If anything I am saving you from yourself by continuing to present a point of view other than your own.

So, what "point of view" are you presenting, asshole?

Max's douchiness is well-documented.

[David K.]

Even David, who hates Joe Mama, agrees with me

Aww i don't HATE him. I just think he's off his rocker sometimes, ok ALOT of times, but I don't know him well enough to hate him.

[Alasdair]

Did you hear they just announced the title of Mel Gibson's next movie ...

Mad Max: Beyond Parody

[Becky]

Can't we all just get along?

[Angrier and Angrier]

What's this deal with Joe Mama pulling up quotes from Mad Max from a year ago? Sounds like the guy is kind of obsessed. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?

Who knew my messing with Joe Mama would create so much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth? Speaking about the world's smallest violin. Poor Joe Mama.

Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than obsess over what others do for a living?

[Angrier and Angrier]

I don't obsess. I know.

No, you're clearly obsessed.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"Get over yourself"

Coming from the orginator of www.BrendanLoy.com and the Brendansphere. That is humorous on so many levels.

[David K.]

You really should just change your name to Stupider and Stupider if you can't see the difference between running a personal website (Brendan) and acting like you know the details about a random person on the internet (A & A)

[Brendan Loy]

Angrier:

You forgot Bloypedia. (To say nothing of Poland!)

[Angrier and Angrier]

I only know the details that Joe Mama has shared with us. And the reference to "get over yourself" was aimed at Mad Max. Anybody who names a blog after themselves and then spends an hour or two a day posting boring details about their personal life needs to "get over" themselves.

[Brendan Loy]

Heh. Which make someone who spends a chunk of his day reading those "boring details"... what, exactly?

It's not like I'm forcing you to read it, dude.

In any event, your assertion that anyone with a personal blog needs to "get over themselves" -- whether or not it's applicable to me specifically -- is laughable as a general statement. The sweeping generalization that all personal bloggers are narcissists is absurd. Some are, sure. Most, maybe! But surely you must concede there are some personal bloggers out there whose motivation is something other than self-aggrandizement. They blog because it's an outlet for their creative energy, because it's a useful way to stay in touch with friends and to make new friends and acquaintances, because they enjoy writing and it gives them a forum in which to do so, because it makes it easy to keep friends and family abreast of developments in their lives (and share photos, etc.), because it's fun to engage in debate and discussion with an online community, because... I could go on. And come to think of it, all of those motivations I just described apply quite well to me. Imagine that!

But no: you must be right, the only possible explanation for why I maintain this blog (and name it after myself...not like that's inherently logical for a personal blog, and thus extremely common, or anything) is because I think I'm better than all of you, not to mention everyone else on Earth, and I have to constantly prove it to myself by posting here each day. Yup -- that must be it. Self-aggrandizement and narcissism are obviously my motivations. None of the other explanations I just mentioned can possibly be involved. I just need to get over myself.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I actually don't read most of your personal posts. I read the news and sports ones.

[Brendan Loy]

Well, good for you. I'm well aware that there are a ton of people who come here for news and/or sports (and/or weather) and ignore the other stuff. Good for them -- I'm certainly not offended. There are others who ignore sports, or ignore weather, or ignore news. Some visit only during hurricane season; some, only during college football season. Some come here primarily for the personal stuff! Did that ever occur to you? Did you ever think that maybe there are other people who read my blog, who do read, and enjoy, the personal posts that you find "boring"? Or are you projecting your own impressions and reactions onto the universe at large? Which one of us needs to get over himself again?

And by the way, I certainly don't spend 1-2 hours a day on personal posts. The amount of time I spend on them varies, but without question, that vastly overstates it.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. For the record, I don't care that you find my personal posts boring -- that's perfectly fine. As I said, I'm well aware that a substantial percentage of my audience does. That's no problem; they can pick and choose what they want to read. I merely object to your logical train of thought, which appears to be: you find them boring, therefore everyone finds them boring, therefore they are useless exercises of narcissism and the only possible explanation for their continued existence is that I need to get over myself.

Anyway, my late lunch break is almost over, so I need to stop arguing with you over stupid sh*t and get back to work. It's been real.

A&A, seriously, give it up.

[Angrier and Angrier]

My work here is done.

True. You have discredited yourself marvelously.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"True. You have discredited yourself marvelously."

Such words might hurt if they weren't written by a true ass-clown.

You know me too? Dumbfuck.

[Brendan Loy]

"Such words might hurt if they weren't written by a true ass-clown."

Dude, those words come from an anonymous commenter! How can you possibly know that the unidentified source of an anonymous comment is a "true ass-clown"? Or is ANYONE who dares criticize you a "true ass-clown" for that reason alone? Hahaha.

Your reaction to the comment about you discrediting yourself, discredits you even more than the original discrediting!

[Mad Max, Esquire]

"ass clown (ás kloun) n.:

one, who, through the fault of his parents conception, is a skid mark in society's collective underwear."

Based on the content of his comments, that sounds about right.

thanks asshole